Technical regulation enforcement system

ABSTRACT

A system presented herein, called COMPATH™, incorporates computer technology, computer software and the world wide web to expedite and improve regulation compliance levels, logistics, and communications. Building departments and other regulation enforcement agencies have been historically overtaxed in their ability to systematically enforce regulations such as building codes and ordinances, and lack the means to consistently and effectively communicate with stakeholders. As the number and complexity of these building code regulations have expanded, enforcement agencies continue to lag in their ability to enforce them. The impacts of this lack of capability have been manifested in damage from catastrophic storms and earthquakes and in poor energy code compliance in buildings. Damage from numerous events has been found by forensics studies to be attributable to lax code enforcement.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application is a continuation of U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 12/653,306 entitled “TECHNICAL REGULATION ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM”,and filed on 2009 Dec. 10, which claims the benefit of U.S. ProvisionalPatent Application No. 61/201,537 filed on 2008 Dec. 10, each of whichis hereby incorporated by reference.

FIELD

The present invention relates to a computing system, software, network,and other technology that streamlines the processing of incorporatingcomplex building codes, specifications, design details, and ordinancesinto a useable and efficient form for field personnel who are chargedwith ensuring that these intended provisions are manifested in buildingsor other structures at key inspection phases during construction orrenovation and, more particularly, incorporating handheld computingsystems, networks, and other technology that orchestrate the efficient,real-time overall regulated compliance process, educate its users, andmake all stakeholders accountable for their actions.

BACKGROUND

Over the past century, we have witnessed many natural disasters and thedestruction they have wrought around the world and in the US. HurricanesKatrina, Gilbert and the Northridge, California earthquake arerepresentative examples. These and other events have cost untoldbillions of dollars in damage to buildings from wind, earthquakes,flooding, poor indoor air quality and lesser recognized impacts frompoor building construction and lost energy efficiency. A centralunderlying factor in this damage is the lack of a credible andsystematic building code enforcement system that can be employed in thefield by jurisdiction and special building inspectors. This has beenexacerbated by the lack of a system that engages and makes accountableother stakeholders such as builders, designers, and jurisdiction supportpersonnel.

An additional problem is the lack of a technological means to streamlineancillary tasks performed by inspectors, jurisdiction support personnel,designers and contractors that consume time that could otherwise bededicated to inspection functions. Stakeholders have never had anefficient way of completing building code compliance activities in asystematic, consistent manner with a clearly defined set of expectationsand a system that eliminates confusion and targets the specificrequirements for each unique building design.

Poor energy code compliance is a widely recognized and unsolved problemin the U.S. quest for reducing dependence on foreign petroleum supplies.All U.S. States currently have a legislative mandate to achieve 90%energy code compliance levels in the near term and no means to achievethat level of compliance without an efficient technology system.

Past solutions are marginal but represented as follows:

-   -   Plans and specifications that are approved by the local        governmental jurisdictions and required to be on-site at the        time of inspections.    -   Paper compliance forms that consist of code compliance checklist        items for each building.    -   Compliance placards that signify compliance with some aspects of        inspection approval.

None of these solutions comprehensively addresses the problem of codeenforcement and this has been documented by numerous forensics reportsdescribing the lack of actual building code compliance in buildingsusing the aforementioned solutions.

In the past and to this day, inspectors routinely travel to the job sitewith a permit and set of plans, which are then used to haphazardly checkbuilding details during a very limited inspection time window. Theresult was and is a cursory check that is often based more on theinspector's general code knowledge and less on important detailedrequirements that are critically important to integrity of building codecompliance associated with and in the specific building design.

It is wrongly assumed that many of the engineering details arereasonably left to the engineer and the contractor to verify. Veryseldom does this get accomplished because the engineer is notcompensated for this service by the owner and the contractor is notinterested because he/she is not held accountable by the over-workedinspector for incorporating these details. Contractors often have adisincentive to include these overlooked details because of addedsavings, which can enhance project profits. In addition, manyresidential and small commercial projects do not have engineers and theassociated oversight they might bring to these projects.

No existing system provides a rapid, customized check-off protocol forensuring that all of these essential code details are incorporated andverified as compliant in new buildings. Credible levels of inspectionscrutiny are not enforced by any existing system nor does any systemeconomize time spent for logistical tasks of the inspection such thathe/she can dedicate more time to actual inspections.

Some of the tasks associated with building inspections includerepetitive note taking, trying to communicate with contractors andhomeowners, driving to and from inspections, organizing technicalinspection details, looking up code requirements, and other duties thatare not effectively automated.

Other solutions are inconsistent in all areas of concern because theinspection and compliance processes are very loosely defined because ofan absence of automation in detailed tasks of inspection, plan review,staff, and other stakeholder duties. Due to the lack of a comprehensivesystem that directly addresses code enforcement by field inspectors,building department jurisdictions are simply less effective in servingthe public.

Field enforcement is consistently inconsistent in jurisdictions of allsizes because audit mechanisms to check inspector, contractor, anddesigner performance are non-existent, with an inherent lack of specificscripts for performing the duties of code enforcement at a technicallyadequate level.

Contractors and subcontractors currently have no credible tools forbeing held consistently accountable for detailed compliance verificationwith building codes and ordinances and clearly do not have a means forknowing what to do and efficiently participate in the code complianceprocess.

Currently, hand-held computing device systems are underutilized as atool that can allow field inspectors and contractors to check off itemsfrom an electronic code compliance checklist that pertain to particularjobs and inspection locations within buildings.

No efficient system exists for communicating between the project designprofessional, contractor, and jurisdiction in a real-time, efficientmanner at the point of inspection in terms of approvals or disapprovals.

In the past and present, inspections have been scripted by individualcodes and specific topic areas within those codes, and were notefficiently grouped to include all requirements by inspection locationas well as responsibility of the inspector.

No system allows the inspector to move efficiently through a buildingbased on inspecting only those required provisions that are relevant toa specific area.

No system reorganizes what may have seemed like disorganized butrelevant inspection checklist items for a specific area, into aninspection report that is cohesively organized by specific codes andrequirements within those codes, and then have the results filed anddelivered to contractor in hard copy form and/or e-mail using thewireless/Wi-Fi communications capacity of handheld computing systems.

No system has comprehensively organized overall inspection, contractor,designer, and jurisdiction staff functions with the objective tominimize time spent on logistics and maximize time for field inspection.

No system allows the audit of detailed inspection and compliance recordsby inspection requirement detail, making contractors, designers, andinspection personnel accountable, via audits, for their actions or lackthereof.

No systems have incorporated technology such as dictation, photos, voicefiles, and pre-defined, context-sensitive inspection report text, coderequirement hyperlink indexing, real-time communications withstakeholders, and electronic filing of inspection results.

No system incorporates technology that locates each inspection and itsrequirements by manageable, step-by-step, hyperlinked locations, whereeach of the location hyperlinks combine to represent the overallbuilding plan schematics.

No system has required the active participation and accountably of thecontractor and sub-contractors with a system requiring theirparticipation and detailed verification of code compliance.

No system generates checklists that direct non-English-speakingsubcontracting personnel to follow job-specific codes andspecifications.

No existing system educates users in very specific, context-driventechnical content that relates to each building code requirement ordetail project specification.

SUMMARY

Inspector and Associated Interfaces

It is an object of the invention to automate the inspection process suchthat it efficiently scripts detailed inspection details and verificationby all stakeholders in code compliance through the completion of theproject.

It is an object of the invention to provide an automated report makerfor inspectors.

It is an object of the invention to provide two optional navigationscreens on the hand-held computing system for field enforcementinspectors, one that has a list of hyperlinks to system functions and asecond that has a series of buttons in the form of a dashboard withbigger buttons to access the same functions, better accommodating thelarger fingers of users.

It is an object of the invention to duplicate the hardware and systemcapability to react to finger touch, stylus and keyboard input command,functions, and other actions with voice activation technology.

It is an object of the invention to have one of the navigation screenshave buttons that are activated by depressing by touch and while holdingdown the button, slide the finger over a field that is activated, andmake selections from a list that is highlighted as the pressure isapplied to the surface and selected by lifting the finger.

It is an object of the invention to include a product databaseaccessible to defined users of the system.

It is an object of the invention to allow the inspector to customizesystem options for particular codes/requirements, hours of work,personal identification, and other parameters that do not affect thecontent of the compliance checklist requirements.

It is an object of the invention to provide an inspection protocol thatprioritizes important inspection details and provides technical supportat the level required by the inspector to fully understand therequirements and underlying technical merits.

It is an object of the invention to educate inspectors and stakeholderswith context-accessible commentary for each inspection requirement inany set of inspection requirements.

It is an object of the invention to educate inspectors and stakeholderswith building code commentary accessible through keyword searches.

It is an object of the invention to use computing systems, personaldigital assistants (PDA's), global positioning systems (GPS), digitalcameras, cell phones, printers, system software, audio recorders, webcontent, intranets, the Internet, technical resources, and othertechnology tools to manage the regulatory process.

It is an object of the invention to incorporate PDA's and other fieldcomputing equipment having direct or wireless Internet connectioncapability to revise or download files critical to project-specificfield inspections including but not limited to communications,directions, checklists, compliance verification, and other field tasks.This utility can move and utilize files and applications on the fly.Additional system-specific capability will be built-in to the COMPATH™system as required.

It is an object of the invention to efficiently ensure that buildingscomply with building, fire, energy, plumbing, mechanical, electrical,urban wildfire interface and other codes and building standards to anextent not possible with existing systems.

It is an object of the invention to empower inspectors to enforcecomplex earthquake, wind and fire (life safety) green building andenergy codes, standards, rating systems and programs in the mostcomprehensive, accountable, and timely way devised to date.

It is an object of the invention to mitigate a prevalent and enduringproblem of code deficiencies that have been consistently exposed inpost-earthquake and post-hurricane building forensics investigations.

It is an object of the invention to provide an interface to the buildingofficial and jurisdiction staff to confirm the project status andprovide access to all project records through design, approval,inspections, and project completion.

It is an object of the invention to input and allow easy access bystakeholders of jurisdiction information, including inspection records,deemed appropriate by public policy.

It is an object of the invention to provide an inspection route finderbased on a GPS system address locator and associated travel information.

It is an object of the invention to allow users to set, filteravailability and times, and edit inspection appointments.

It is an object of the invention to provide an inspection requestutility for the public that builds in certain prerequisite steps to beperformed by the requester.

It is an object of the invention to empower inspectors and building codeenforcement staff to economize many duties that take time away from theefficient use of time and travel, allotting more time for the actualinspections and the critical details that must be checked.

It is an object of the invention to organize the routes of theinspectors to maximize driving efficiency.

It is an object of the invention to calculate and estimate travel andinspection times and give the inspector a real-time estimate of theinspections that can be completed considering the inspection types anddistances traveled.

It is an object of the invention to automate and minimize inspector timeallotments to establishing efficient time and travel routes forinspections and providing computed routes for each inspection stop.

It is an object of the invention to incorporate voice recognitiontechnology to greatly streamline inspector communications by directattachment and text conversion to text-based reports and othercommunications.

It is an object of the invention that the notation and report generatorincorporate voice recognition to convert voice dictation tonotes/inspection report text or audio files.

It is an object of the invention to provide a context-driven utilityfunction to access maps of any inspection locations that are needed.

It is an object of the invention to provide building plan schematicsthat visually show and are activated by users to invoke inspectionscreens with checklist elements that are specifically required for thatportion of the structure.

It is an object of the invention to provide a customized inspectionsequence for each structure and a corresponding inspection checklist foreach observable area as the inspector systematically moves through thebuilding being guided by the screens in the COMPATH™ system.

It is an object of the invention to provide inspection checklist itemsthat are customized for each portion of a building or area.

It is an object of the invention that as each checklist item isactivated, it reveals associated approval and disapproval hyperlinkbuttons.

It is an object of the invention to provide access to all codes,ordinances, and interpretation databases that are adopted and in effectin a jurisdiction.

It is an object of the invention to provide simplified protocols forinvoking automated correction notes that are compiled into inspectionreports, using communications via web and other means.

It is an object of the invention that when the checklist itemdisapproval button is depressed, it invokes the checklist note-takingscreen.

It is an object of the invention that the checklist note-taking screeneffectively appears when disapproval of a checklist item occurs and theinspector is prompted to make a note.

It is an object of the invention to provide a notation system that has aseries of pre-written pull-down messages that can be selected forinclusion in the inspection note or report.

It is an object of the invention to provide an inspection reportgenerator that compiles all of the disapproval notes into apreconfigured report that includes inspection type(s), approvals,disapprovals, deficiency details, code references, explanations,contact, follow-up instructions and other pertinent information anddirections.

It is an object of the invention to incorporate into checklist itemshyperlink buttons for the corresponding regulation section number(s) andlanguage, interpretations and commentary explaining the language, andhyperlinked references for further resource information.

It is an object of the invention to provide searchable access tobuilding official association databases of code interpretation questionsthat have been discussed on code official list serve e-mail lists suchas that maintained by the Washington Association of Building Officials.

It is an object of the invention to automatically tag correction noticesof any item with relevant code sections that systematically solvelong-standing and contentious “show me the code section” requests fromdesigners, contractors and others.

It is an object of the invention to systematically require the inspectorto check all code and ordinance requirements and provides a touch-screensystem for rapidly checking off details.

It is an object of the invention to provide a real-time, web-basedcommunications link between the inspector, other building departmentstaff, and the design/construction team.

It is an object of the invention to minimize inspector efforts inorganizing and responding to communications from design/constructionstakeholders.

It is an object of the invention to eliminate extraneous coderequirements and checklist items that do not pertain to a particularproject.

It is an object of the invention to provide built-in flexibility toaccommodate the specific needs of a jurisdiction to tailor protocols totheir own needs (The detail level is defined by specified tiers ofrequirements defined by the authority having jurisdiction for theCOMPATH™ system).

It is an object of the invention to provide an excellent platform forany enforcement activity where many factors and databases of informationmust be efficiently managed and accessed in the field and made availablethrough at a central server. Homeland Security and related securityfunctions would have applications where the COMPATH™ system could provevery effective.

It is an object of the invention to bring higher levels of codeenforcement and process organization to jurisdictions of any size thatare particularly challenged in this area.

It is an object of the invention to use the COMPATH™ system for auditsof enforcement performance and work output.

It is an object of the invention to provide a checklist note screen thatappears when a disapproval of a checklist item occurs and prompts theinspector to make a note.

It is an object of the invention to have a notation system that includesa series of pre-written pull-down message fields crafted by thedepartment and embellished by the inspector due to particularcircumstances. These will drill-down on large volumes of potentialresponses with minimum effort.

It is an object of the invention to provide a utility that allows directediting of the pull-down messages in the notation system.

It is an object of the invention to provide a spell-check capability forthe notation system.

It is an object of the invention to use hand-held computing equipmentwith the capability to take pictures that reference to the hyperlink andinspection requirements being invoked at any specific point in theinspection.

It is an object of the invention to allow insertion and referencing ofphotos to specific requirements or comments in emails, reports, andrecords.

It is an object of the invention to provide the capability to append andreference digital pictures to inspection deficiencies in emailed reportsto project stakeholders.

It is an object of the invention to add the capability to upload intothe system referenced photos from digital cameras and through wirelessor direct connections to the PDA, computers, and network or by othermeans.

It is an object of the invention to provide a notation system with ane-mail utility that is shared with the report generator that may sende-mail to any of the project stakeholders.

It is an object of the invention to provide a readily accessible e-mailaddress database that includes all of the stakeholders for eachpermitted project.

It is an object of the invention that for each set of checklist items,corresponding to predefined inspection locations, having a control thatrequires each checklist item to either be approved or disapproved priorto having the system identify the checklist set as being completelyinspected.

It is an object of the invention to incorporate building plan schematicsthat are made up of a series of graphic hyperlink segments that in-turnconform to different inspection observation areas in the building.

It is an object of the invention to that for each building planschematic segment, the inspection of checklist items will result in avisual means of designating approval or disapproval, which is designatedthrough color change and/or text identification.

It is an object of the invention to provide that each observation areaor separate hyperlink represented by a portion of a given building planschematic groups all of the checklist items that are required for thatparticular inspection. For all of the hyperlinks in the schematic thatcollectively comprise an inspection, the scope of an inspector'sresponsibilities is restricted to the jurisdiction defined inspectiontype and the checklist items. The overall scope of these requirementsand how many different codes they cover are determined by the authorityhaving jurisdiction.

It is an object of the invention to include building plan schematicsthat are broken into a series of smaller hyperlinks that correspond toinspection viewpoints, each of which is successively touch-activated asthe inspector moves in an efficient path through the building.

It is an object of the invention to maintain a visual contextrepresented by building schematics that reasonably represents thebuilding plan design drawings.

It is an object of the invention to allow that building hyperlinks berepresented in whole or by portions of walls, floors, roofs, or othersignificant building elements.

It is an object of the invention that when activated, each of thesehyperlinks reveals associated inspection checklist items and scriptedtasks that the inspector must respond to prior to activating the nexthyperlinked segment.

It is an object of the invention that scripted tasks include but are notlimited to approvals, disapprovals, note taking, photo taking, research,emails, and reporting.

It is an object of the invention to organize, capture, and verifycompliance with a high volume of very complex regulations or designelements using a graphics-based system.

It is an object of the invention to ensure adequate attention to themost detailed requirement yet retaining an overall visual context withthe corresponding component location within the building.

It is an object of the invention to provide a level of inspection detailthat is adjustable by the system administrator to reflect policy of thedepartment or mandates from the authority having jurisdiction. An auditcontrol will assign a tracking mechanism for the level of detail thatwas selected for all inspections, making the authority havingjurisdiction accountable for the level of detail that is selected. Ifthe political climate for this feature is a market impediment and is notrequired by the authority having jurisdiction, it can be incapacitatedbut the system will qualify inspections performed under theseconditions. This adjustability feature accommodates political andprogram mandates that may vary by jurisdiction and/or that evolve overtime as the enforcement climate changes.

Contractors and Sub Contractors

It is an object of the invention to include a product databaseaccessible to defined users of the system.

It is an object of the invention to provide a contractor interface thatprovides department information, check off compliance lists, reports,inspection results, and electronic communications withdesign/enforcement stakeholders.

It is an object of the invention to provide a sub-contractor interfacethat provides department information, check off compliance lists,reports, inspection results, and electronic communications withcontractor.

It is an object of the invention for the system to generatecode-compliance, check-off lists for the contractor to verify that allof the code required items are in compliance prior to calling for ajurisdiction inspection.

It is an object of the invention to provide a pre-inspection check-offlist to the contractor that organizes, captures and verifies compliancewith a high volume of potentially very complex regulations or designelements using a graphics-based system that helps ensure adequateattention to the smallest detail yet retains overall context withdifferent regulation types and locations of these elements in thedesign.

It is an object of the invention to generate illustrated, sub-contractorbuilding detail directions and checklists that direct individuals doingspecific tasks how to meet the approved plan and specificationrequirements for their area of responsibility. These directions areproduced in the prevailing languages of English and non-English-speakingworkers, which may include but are not limited to Spanish and Russian.

It is an object of the invention to make subcontractors responsible forverifying their own work against specific directions and requirements,and submitting them to the contractor, who will in turn need to verifycompliance to the jurisdiction prior to calling for inspections; Thisgreatly enhances the probable success of the inspections and appeals tocontractors because it ensures better work by subcontractors andminimizes customer callbacks and the time wasted on re-inspections forwhich the contractor is responsible.

It is an object of the invention to facilitate a direct connectionbetween the contractor's PDA and/or field computing equipment through awireless capability to revise or download files critical toproject-specific, field check-off verification of regulationrequirements plus communications, compliance approvals, scheduling, andother field tasks. The system has capabilities similar in some ways tothose of AVANTGO™, PALM™, and DOCUMENTS-TO-GO™ to move and utilize filesand applications on the fly. Additional capability will be built in tothe systems as required.

It is an object of the invention to invoke the PDA and/or computer-basedCOMPATH™ system interface as a direct and convenient means for thecontractor to respond to inspection results and otherwise communicatewith inspectors and other jurisdiction personnel.

It is an object of the invention that the system will provide built-inprotocols and contact information that streamline repetitive e-mailelements and other redundant communications tasks throughpre-configuration.

It is an object of the invention to automate and minimize contractorefforts in organizing and responding to communications from jurisdictionpersonnel and other stakeholders with an inspection report responsesystem that can be efficiently emailed and/or printed out fordesign/construction stakeholders.

It is an object of the invention to provide the contractor with averification checklist of items that are customized into “bite Sized”portions for each building element or area being inspected, using thechecklist requirements.

It is an object of the invention to provide building plan schematicsthat visually show and are activated by contractors to invoke check offrequirement screens with checklist elements that are required for thatportion of the structure.

It is an object of the invention to list check-off requirement itemswith corresponding checkboxes so that the contractor can perform apre-inspection of all items that will be present on the inspector'schecklist with the same items.

It is an object of the invention that each check off item has anassociated note screen that can form the basis of an e-mail to theinspector or jurisdiction automatically referencing the correspondingrequirement.

It is an object of the invention to manually add input to pull-down,pre-written messages of the notation system.

It is an object of the invention that check off list items havehyperlink buttons for the corresponding regulation section number(s)and, depending on access to licensed resources may include language;interpretations and commentary explaining the language and furtherhyperlinked references for further resource information.

It is an object of the invention that the check off list has controlsthat require all check off items to either be checked as complete ormodified by subsequent department approval.

It is an object of the invention that subsequent jurisdiction check-offlist approvals denoted in the previous comment are documented in thecheck-off list with date, approving authority and other pertinentinformation.

It is an object of the invention that the completed contractor check-offlist may be compiled into a report that is submitted to the jurisdictionand is intended as a prerequisite to the jurisdiction inspection of thecheck off list items.

It is an object of the invention a building plan schematic, much likethe inspector schematic in concept, is made up of a series of graphichyperlink segments that conform to different check off list observationareas in the building.

It is an object of the invention that each observation area or separatehyperlink in one of the building plan schematic groups all of the checkoff list items that are required for that particular area of acontractor's pre-inspection review. For all of the hyperlinks in theschematic that collectively comprise a pre-inspection review, the scopeof a contractor's responsibilities is restricted to thejurisdiction-defined inspection type and the check-off list items. Theoverall scope of these requirements and how many different codes theycover are determined by the jurisdiction.

It is an object of the invention that each building plan schematicsegment in the building, following contractor check offs, has a visualmeans of indicating completion, incompletion or jurisdiction approvedmodification.

It is an object of the invention that an inspection report generatorcompiles all of the disapproval notes into a preconfigured report thatincludes inspection type(s), approvals, disapprovals, deficiencydetails, code references, explanations, contact, follow-up instructionsand other pertinent information and directions.

It is an object of the invention that the check-off list has a catchallcheck-off for each sub-contractor check-off approval that allows him touse that category. If this is abused the department has the option todeactivate this feature.

Designer and Associated Interfaces

It is an object of the invention to specify codes and generally filtercode requirements through pull down fields that filter generalcategories of code requirements to manageable sets of requirements.

It is an object of the invention to provide a utility to the buildingdesigner to filter code requirements to those that are relevant to eachconstruction project by sifting through general categories of desiredbuilding design features.

It is an object of the invention to provide an editor to further excludeirrelevant code requirements and add others that may be relevant using amanual code requirement filter determined by the specific code beingreviewed.

It is an object of the invention to include a building schematicdevelopment utility for the designer that mirrors the building floorplans as a means to direct the inspector's inspections and to organizerequirement compliance to specific relevant areas.

It is an object of the invention to provide access to database of listedconstruction materials and building science reports.

It is an object of the invention to provide access to subscribedbuilding codes state and local ordinances, and zoning.

It is an object of the invention to provide links to other agencies thatmay have relevance in design and permitting of buildings.

It is an object of the invention to give the designer the ability todefine who is responsible for insuring project quality control andcalling for inspections.

It is an object of the invention to give the designer the ability todefine who will be responsible on design team for oversight ofInternational Building Code (IBC)/International Residential Code (IRC)Chapter 17 special inspection requirements.

It is an object of the invention to provide a mash-up of green compliantspecifier databases for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED) and Green Globes compliant projects.

It is an object of the invention to include a user-interface that usesan interview process to simplify the process of qualifying and complyingwith complex regulations.

It is an object of the invention to maximize the use of pull-down fieldsthat are sequential to one another and drill-down on large volumes ofinformation with a minimum of list reviews and mouse clicks.

It is an object of the invention to not limit the use of pull-downfields to accessing databases; the system also searches plan details,code and ordinance requirements, policies, and interpretations.

It is an object of the invention to provide a database of buildingproduct suppliers are accessed through system via subscription or otherarrangements.

It is an object of the invention to allow primary, secondary, andtertiary choices of specific products are listed in accessible databaseswith third-party Listing documentation. When changes are made, anautomatic notification occurs via Internet to the jurisdiction projectspecification file, which may incur additional fees per jurisdictionpolicies.

It is an object of the invention to provide access to databases suchthat this will greatly simplify the design specification and designmodification process and may be provided through paid subscriptions andinterfaces with private vendors.

It is an object of the invention to include policies on questionableproducts that have not demonstrated acceptable compliance criteria maybe included in an accessible database.

It is an object of the invention to use pay-per-project Internet siteaccounts to submit project documentation and required information.

It is an object of the invention to require that all submittals managethe data input in a consistent and comprehensive process that stillaccommodates design license on the part of the design professional.

It is an object of the invention to allow state-of-art computer-aideddesign (CAD) system technology to be utilized to interface with thesubmittal process while still allowing for traditional conventionalpaper submittals.

It is an object of the invention to provide a direct connection with theinspector and jurisdiction through the use of PDA's, computers, GPS, theInternet, Jurisdiction Intranets, and web site user accounts.

It is an object of the invention to “Mash-up” (per WEB 2.0™ or betteralternatives) different materials and specifier databases for a project.

It is an object of the invention to incorporate a family of Internetsites where micro-content is used to provide useful information to thedesigner relating to design specifications and on the fly,re-specifications of project details that often happen as a result oflack of product availability or other design considerations.

It is an object of the invention to allow the upload of specified CADdrawing files or building plan schematics that will be reviewed by thejurisdiction plan reviewer and form the basis for the contractorpre-inspection check off interface and the inspector's inspectionchecklist interface.

It is an object of the invention to allow those that submit plans in aconventional format to convert the plan into a format interoperable withthe system file upload criteria.

It is an object of the invention to provide a utility that generatesscaled versions of the building plans as they are implemented into theinspection/compliance software.

It is an object of the invention to utilize but not be limited to planelevations, floor, roof, foundation, site section views as examples ofplan details needed for this process.

It is an object of the invention that the building plan files beconverted into segmented hyperlinks by the actions of the designer, thesoftware interface and subject to the approval of the jurisdiction planreviewer.

It is an object of the invention that these segmented hyperlinks combineto represent the actual graphic building project plans.

It is an object of the invention that the user ultimately is able toclick on the hyperlink segments to reveal the specific project detailrequirements for each visually depicted segment, which comes in the formof a check off list for the contractor or inspection checklist for theinspector.

It is an object of the invention that the inspector and contractor thenuse the PDA or other equivalent printed form of checklist mechanism thatallows them to move around the building to systematically checkrequirements.

It is an object of the invention that the hyperlinked segments each beconfigured to select requirements by individual codes or requirementsets or to combine different codes or requirement sets.

It is an object of the invention that the designer/contractor's permitpackage provides project- and trade-specific, easy-to-read printoutbuilding graphics and directions to designers, contractors andsubcontractors. Graphics- and text-based specifications provide criticaldetail for problematic construction components that are ofteninadequately addressed such as but not limited to insulation, vaporbarriers, ductwork, air sealing, nailing, connectors, weather sealing,roofing, and building materials.

It is an object of the invention that compliance checklist sheets havecheck-off boxes that the sub-contractors would use to affirm complianceand supply to the contractor, making his or her job easier and helpingto ensure a passing inspection by the jurisdiction.

It is an object of the invention that the general contractor would usethe results to check approval or disapproval boxes on the pre-inspectioncheck off lists using his or her PDA interface or check off list paperform as a prerequisite to the jurisdiction inspection.

It is an object of the invention that, in addition to English, theaforementioned specification sheets/worker directions are translatedinto languages that represent those of the prevailing workforces,current examples of which include but are not limited to Spanish andRussian. This allows contractors to hire and maximizing the productivityof non-English speaking sub-contractors by communication of specificrequirements for each job while minimizing the language barrier.

It is an object of the invention that the level of compliancerequirement detail be adjustable by the system administrator to reflectpolicy of the department or mandates from the authority havingjurisdiction. An audit control will assign a tracking mechanism for thelevel of detail that was selected for all design submittal data, makingthe authority having jurisdiction accountable for the level of detailthat is selected. If the political climate for this feature is a marketimpediment and is not required by the authority having jurisdiction, itcan be incapacitated but the system will record design submittalsperformed under these conditions. This adjustability featureaccommodates political and program mandates that may vary byjurisdiction and/or that evolve over time as the enforcement climatechanges.

Plan Review and Associated Interfaces

It is an object of the invention to facilitate access to subscribedbuilding codes, state and local ordinances, zoning, and otherregulations as they apply.

It is an object of the invention to provide links to other agencies thatmay have relevance in design and permitting of buildings.

It is an object of the invention to review who is responsible forinsuring project quality control and calling for inspections.

It is an object of the invention to review who will be responsible on adesign team for IBC/IRC Chapter 17 special inspection requirements.

It is an object of the invention to include a module for IBC Chapter 17reports and protocols for lateral, concrete and other designated specialinspection requirements. The functionality of the system accommodatesthis accessory process.

It is an object of the invention to “Mash-up” (per WEB 2.0™ or betteralternatives) different materials and specifier databases for a project.

It is an object of the invention to include compatibility andinteroperability with LEED, other energy software applications and otherappropriate applications.

It is an object of the invention to specify standard jurisdictioninspection protocols.

It is an object of the invention to specify all special inspectionprotocols, timing, coverage, and inspector/inspection agencycredentials.

It is an object of the invention to review hyperlinked building planschematics developed by the designer.

It is an object of the invention that a mash-up of green compliantspecifier databases for LEED, Green building plan reviews Include auser-interface that incorporates an interview process to simplify theprocess of qualifying and complying with complex regulations.

It is an object of the invention that plan review occurs through the useof two interfaces (1) an interview protocol and/or (2) a checklistdirectory of all items that need to be plan reviewed. Each of theseoptions may be used interactively with one another. Complex coderequirements may be reviewed in the interview mode through a series ofit incremental questions that simplify the application of key coderequirements. Many of the requirements may be automatically checkedagainst those submitted in the designer-supplied plan and specificationsubmittal files. Problem or questioned areas of the submittal areautomatically flagged by the software for review.

It is an object of the invention that the plan review accesses anelectronic submittal software package that is submitted by the projectdesign team.

It is an object of the invention that depending on the level ofsophistication and implementation of the system, hard-copy plans andspecifications may or may not be required.

It is an object of the invention to maximize the use of pull-down fieldsthat are sequential to one another and drill-down on large volumes ofinformation with a minimum of list scrolling and mouse clicks.

It is an object of the invention that aforementioned pull-down fields beused but are not limited to accessing databases, searches, plan details,code and ordinance requirements, policies and interpretations.

It is an object of the invention that building product supplierdatabases and accessory documents are accessed through system viasubscription or other arrangements.

It is an object of the invention that primary, secondary, and tertiarychoices of specific products are listed in accessible databases withthird-party Listing documentation. When changes are made to previouslyapproved design features, an automatic notification occurs via Internetto the jurisdiction project specification file, which may incuradditional fees per jurisdiction plan review policies. These changes areflagged to jurisdiction staff.

It is an object of the invention that access to all databases pertinentto the majority of building construction greatly simplifies the designspecification and design modification process and may be providedthrough paid subscriptions and interfaces with private vendors.

It is an object of the invention that policies on questionable productsthat have not demonstrated acceptable compliance criteria may beincluded in an accessible database.

It is an object of the invention to provide a direct connection with theinspector and jurisdiction through the use of PDA's, computers GPS, theInternet, Jurisdiction Intranets, and web site user accounts.

It is an object of the invention to allow access to a family of siteswhere micro-content is used to provide useful information to thedesigner relating design specifications and on the fly re-specificationof project details that often happens as a result of a lack of productavailability and other design considerations.

It is an object of the invention to facilitate LEED, Green Globes andother green building program compliant projects.

It is an object of the invention that the program interface allow accessto submitted CAD drawing files for each project that will be reviewed bythe jurisdiction plan reviewer and form the basis for building projectpermit approvals and electronic files that will be transmitted to thedesign/construction team, the jurisdiction project files And thebuilding inspectors. Examples of these electronic files include thecontractor pre-inspection check off interface and the inspector'sinspection checklist interface.

It is an object of the invention that those that submit plans in aconventional format will need to convert the plan into a formatinteroperable with the system file upload criteria, to the extent thatpaper-based documentation and code compliance verification mechanismsare distributed to the stakeholders.

It is an object of the invention that these files provide scaled versionof the building plans as they are implemented into theinspection/compliance software.

It is an object of the invention that plan elevations, floor, roof,foundation, site section views be examples of plan details needed forthis process.

It is an object of the invention that segmented hyperlinks developed bythe designer combine to represent the actual graphic building projectplans.

It is an object of the invention that the designer develop the hyperlinksegments to reveal the specific project detail requirements for thatvisually depicted segment, which comes in the form of a check off listfor the contractor or inspection checklist for the inspector.

It is an object of the invention that the PDA and/or field computingequipment have a direct connect or wireless capability to revise ordownload files critical to project-specific, field inspections includingcommunications, directions, checklists, compliance verification andother field tasks. This capability must allow file synchronize, move andutilize files and applications on the fly.

It is an object of the invention that the level of plan review detail beadjustable by the system administrator to reflect policy of thedepartment or mandates from the authority having jurisdiction. An auditcontrol will assign a tracking mechanism for the level of detail thatwas selected for all plan reviews, making the authority havingjurisdiction accountable for the level of detail that is selected. Ifthe political climate for this feature is a market impediment and is notrequired by the authority having jurisdiction, it can be incapacitatedbut the system will record plan reviews performed under theseconditions. This adjustability feature accommodates political andprogram mandates that may vary by jurisdiction and/or that evolve overtime as the enforcement climate changes.

In accordance with the present invention, there is provided a system,called COMPATH™, incorporating computer technology, hand-held computers,Intranets, the Internet, hard-copy forms and instructions, and othertechnology to expedite and improve in-field compliance in buildings withbuilding codes, ordinances and other regulations, logistics andcommunications. Notable code provisions that will be better enforced areenergy, seismic, wind and virtually any regulations that are enforced beincorporated into the system. It addresses an unsolved need by buildingcode jurisdictions and other regulation enforcement agencies tosystematically enforce, at a high level, the aforementioned regulationsand to consistently and effectively communicate requirements andinspection results with design/construction stakeholders.

This system readily condenses and renders useful the increasing numberand complexity of these regulations so that they can be applied toactual buildings. Enforcement agencies continue to lag in their abilityto enforce them and this system provides a tool to make virtually everyelement of the inspection process more efficient through betterorganization and better verification of what are often very technicalrequirements. The impacts of this lack of capability have beenmanifested in damage from catastrophic storms, earthquakes, and poorenergy efficiency, in many instances where code compliance was notrobust. Hurricanes Katrina, Andrew and Rita, and Northridge and LomaPieta earthquakes in California have alone cost billions in avoidabledamage—attributable by forensics engineers to lax code enforcement.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

A complete understanding of the present invention may be obtained byreference to the accompanying drawings, when considered in conjunctionwith the subsequent, detailed description, in which:

FIG. 1 is a flow diagram view of an overall COMPATH™ system flow chart,depicting the ways in which users interact with the system.

FIG. 2 is a flow diagram view of a design professional and how he/sheuses the COMPATH™ system in projects.

FIG. 3 is a flow diagram view of a contractor and how he/she uses theCOMPATH™ system in projects.

FIG. 4 is a flow diagram view of a descriptive flow chart showing howthe building inspector uses a hand-held computing device with loaded theCOMPATH™ system prior to inspections to organize his day and communicatewith project stakeholders.

FIG. 5 is a computer screen shot view of an inspection layout plannerfor individual building designs. It includes a utility that develops thebuilding plan schematics for each floor in the design. It also lets thedesigner establish inspection locations limited to the viewable area toverify inspection requirements that pertain for those locations.

FIG. 6 is a computer screen shot view of a design requirement filter.This filter drills down on groups of requirements that pertain to aparticular design and eliminate those that do not apply.

FIG. 7 is a computer screen shot view of a designer checklist selectorutility. This utility acts as a screening editor where the designer canadd or subtract requirements that either apply or not to individualprojects.

FIG. 8 is a computer screen shot view of a plan review checklistutility. This utility acts as a plan review editor where thejurisdiction plan reviewer can add or subtract pre-filtered requirementsthat either apply or not to individual projects.

FIG. 9 is a screen shot view of a handheld computing system utility usedto file, edit, and view plan and specifications revisions.

FIG. 10 is a screen shot view of a contractor pre-inspection verifier.This checklist is customized for each inspection location for a specificbuilding and also provides a list of those requirements that are typicalto all areas. The contractor must confirm that all requirements are meton this collective checklist prior to requesting a formal jurisdictioninspection.

FIG. 11 is a screen shot view of a main opening screen. This screenallows the user to navigate through key tasks encountered in the courseof performing the duties of a field inspector.

FIG. 12 is a screen shot view of a main navigation screen for theCOMPATH™ system and is an optional interface style to the layout of FIG.11 that can be selected. This screen is further described in FIGS. 13,14, and 15.

FIG. 13 is a screen shot view of a main navigation screen for theCOMPATH™ system, showing a pull-down, finger activated selection fieldfor phone contact options;

FIG. 14 is a screen shot view of a main navigation screen for theCOMPATH™ system, showing a pull-down, finger activated selection fieldfor phone contact options. This particular selection will list recentincoming and outgoing calls on the system;

FIG. 15 is a screen shot view of a main navigation screen for theCOMPATH™ system, showing a pull-down, finger activated selection fieldfor phone contact options. this particular selection will list numbersfavored by the system user to conduct business;

FIG. 16 is a screen shot view of a handheld computing system inspectionroute organizer and inspection screen.

FIG. 17 is a screen shot view of an inspector inspection verifier. Thischecklist is customized for each location and also provides a list ofthose requirements that are typical to all areas. The building inspectormust confirm that all requirements are met on this collective checklistprior to issuing approvals for inspections.

FIG. 18 is a screen shot view of an inspection drill-down verifier. Thisis an example of a screen that is activated when the “detailed checkoff” hyperlinks for each requirement are employed in the inspectorinspection verifier screens. They allow a more detailed description andapproval format for those that need more direction. They also provide anapproval, disapproval and notation radio buttons. for those that needmore detailed explanations of inspection requirements, the “details”hyperlinks can be invoked for an even more detailed illustration of thesystems being inspected.

FIG. 19 is a screen shot view of a duct drill-down verifier. This screenis an example of an even more detailed treatment of building systemdetails, the regulation requirements and the approval, disapproval andnotation radio buttons. It provides links to approved materials forcompliance; the importance of the measures; critical areas of attention;commentaries that provide background information and technicaldocumentation; code references to the requirements and a feedbackmechanism for the software developers.

FIG. 20 is a screen shot view of a handheld computing system with anautomatically generated inspection note.

FIG. 21 is a screen shot view of a handheld computing system,illustrating the model codes screen.

FIG. 22 is a screen shot view of a jurisdiction inspector's glazinginspection screen example.

FIG. 23 is another screen shot view of the jurisdiction inspector'sglazing inspection screen from FIG. 22. This screen is repeated to showadditional details and features of FIG. 22.

FIG. 24 is another screen shot view of a jurisdiction inspector'sglazing inspection screen from FIG. 22. This screen is repeated to showadditional details and features of FIG. 22.

FIG. 25 is another screen shot view of a jurisdiction inspector'sglazing inspection screen from FIG. 22. This screen is repeated to showadditional details and features of FIG. 22.

FIG. 26 is another screen shot view of the jurisdiction inspector'sglazing inspection screen from FIG. 22. This screen is repeated to showadditional details and features of FIG. 22.

FIG. 27 is a screen shot view of a handheld computing system approvalrecords screen.

FIG. 28 is a screen shot view of a typical inspection report COMPATH™system.

FIG. 29 is a screen shot view of an example of a subcontractorpre-inspection checklist.

FIG. 30 is a screen shot view of an example of an other-than-Englishsubcontractor pre-inspection checklist.

For purposes of clarity and brevity, like elements and components willbear the same designations and numbering throughout the Figures.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

FIG. 1 is an overview to overall COMPATH™ system function, depicting thegeneral ways in which users interact with each other and the system. Thedesign professional application 12 is the program interface that residesin the computing systems and accessible web sites that are part of thesystem.

COMPATH™ System Network Server

The building department server 10 established and maintained by thejurisdiction, serves as the central hub for the COMPATH™ system andprovides the core functionality that ties the entire network together.The COMPATH™ system is not always intended to replace but rather toimprove and meld with the existing jurisdiction web sites and networks.The system blueprint recognizes that some of the components of theCOMPATH™ system may already be included in the jurisdiction web sites inwhich case the duplicating COMPATH™ system features can be disabled asneeded.

Web Site and Software Components

Computing device software and/or web site access provides thefunctionality of the COMPATH™ system interfaces that are accessed by thecontractor application 15, owner/builders through the contractorapplication 15 an interface of which is on the web, design professionalapplication 12, field inspector application 10 b, building officialapplication 18, plan review application 12 a, and counter staffapplication 10 a. Each interface recognizes and responds to the specificinteractions that are required of users in the design/construction andcode enforcement process as depicted in this section. Data for all ofthe interfaces are stored on the building department server 10 and aredownloaded and uploaded, as needed by users. Users have the ability topersonalize the order of listed utilities in system screens only whereit does not degrade the function and effectiveness of the system.

Field Inspector's COMPATH™ System Components

Inspectors will carry an inspector's hand-held computing device 18 ainto the field capable of handling COMPATH™ system functions depictedelsewhere in this description. The COMPATH™ system will take advantageof rapid improvements in handheld technology and web/software advancesto constantly improve system function.

These COMPATH™ systems may include but are not limited to:

-   -   Small touch-screen, hand-held computers    -   Tablet computers    -   Personal Desk Assistants (PDA's)    -   Blackberry, IPhone- and Treo-style PDA mobile phones    -   Windows-based handheld computing devices    -   “Ruggedized” handheld devices

These portable computing devices are most efficient with Wi-Ficapability 19 a so that they can transmit and receive data to and fromthe building department server 10 during the day to and from systemusers. Alternative methods include Bluetooth data transfer with thebuilding department server 10 that in-turn have Wi-Fi capability 19 a orcell phones acting as a modem.

Inspectors may also carry portable printers, inspector's hand-heldcomputing device 18 a, cell phones and other equipment that help realizethe full capacity of the COMPATH™ system. Functions such as portableprinting on site are at the discretion of the jurisdiction but theinspector may also employ e-mail or faxes for the same purposes.

The inspector's hand-held computing device 18 a is loaded with COMPATH™system field inspector application 10 b software that is downloaded andperiodically updated from the jurisdiction server.

The COMPATH™ system-compatible, hand-held computing device and fieldinspector application 10 b software includes links through the buildingdepartment server 10 to the following components:

-   -   Project inspection checklists    -   Inspection approval/disapproval screens    -   Inspection reports edit and transmit screens    -   Project building plan schematics 59 Database of issued permits    -   Database of projects inspected by inspector    -   Inspection request interface    -   Inspection route organizer    -   Inspection route maps and route finder    -   Inspection records including personal notes    -   Scheduled Inspections 158    -   Communications records relating to projects    -   Jurisdiction ordinances    -   E-mail and fax access with dept. stationary    -   State code amendments    -   State Building codes    -   Communications interface with the jurisdiction    -   Client contact information    -   Building codes, interpretations, commentaries, standards,        listings, and technical documents    -   Product databases and listings

The COMPATH™ system provides an inspection data download 11 b of anapproved inspection file for performing each inspection. This fileincludes all of the pertinent information for the permitted project.

Using the inspection data download 11 b, which includes all checklistsand permit information 153, the inspector completes his/her scheduledfield Inspections 41 following a route and schedule laid out by theCOMPATH™ system.

Contractor's COMPATH™ System Components

Although contractors are not required to have all of the components ofthe COMPATH™ system, employing the following COMPATH™ system componentswill simplify code compliance, and communications, and generally makethe overall regulatory process more cost-effective and trouble-free. Thecontractor will have access to the jurisdiction COMPATH™ system on thebuilding department server 10 and functions that are specificallyintended for contractors such as:

-   -   Jurisdiction policies, procedures and ordinances    -   Special bulletins including identification of problem areas in        compliance    -   Tips for working efficiently with the jurisdiction    -   State codes and code amendments    -   Links to subscribing to or purchasing codes, standards,        commentaries and other technical references    -   Permitted inspection records

Content for these site features may be provided by both COMPATH™ and thejurisdictions.

Contractors should have a hand-held, COMPATH™ system-compatible,contractor computing device 14 that is field capable of handlingCOMPATH™ contractor application 15 system functions depicted elsewhereherein. These COMPATH™ systems may include but are not limited to:

-   -   Small touch-screen hand-held computers    -   Tablet computers    -   Personal Desk Assistants (PDA's)    -   Blackberry-, IPhone- and Treo-style PDA mobile phones    -   Windows-based handheld computing devices    -   “Ruggedized” handheld devices

These portable computing devices are most efficient with Wi-Ficapability 19 a or another means of connection with the Internet so thatthey can transmit and receive data to and from the building departmentserver 10 during the day. Alternative methods may include Bluetooth datatransfer with other computers that in-turn have Wi-Fi capability 19 a orcell phones acting as a modem.

The design professional application 12 is compatible with the designprofessional computing device 11, which is comprised of a laptop ordesktop computer. The design professional protocol allows the designerto provide project specific input to the COMPATH™ system. This input iscomprised of a proposed list of code compliance regulations, buildinglayout schematics and other project information. The design professionalapplication 12 also provides a framework for sending and receivingcommunications. This will be further discussed herein in greater detail.

The building official application 18 is compatible with the buildingofficial computing device 17, which is typically comprised of a laptopor desktop computer. The building official role is one of providingoversight, input, and observation to the overall building code 77enforcement processes. This will be further discussed herein in greaterdetail.

The counters staff, application is compatible with the counters staffcomputing device, which is typically comprised of a desktop computer.Counter staff uses the jurisdiction counter staff application 10 a toschedule Inspections 41, communicate with building jurisdiction staff(inspectors in plan reviewers) designers and contractors. The counterstaff application 10 a provides real-time access to the status ofbuilding Inspections 41, inspection times, inspection results, and othercommunications intended for users of the system.

The jurisdiction plan review application 12 a is compatible with theplan review workstation 11 a, which is typically comprised of a desktopcomputer. Plan review process is one of reviewing COMPATH™ system inputsfrom the design professional. These inputs include building layoutschematics, draft building code 77 compliance checklists, and otherrelevant project and building permit information 153. This will befurther discussed herein in greater detail.

The special inspector application 14 b and special plan reviewapplication 12 a are compatible with the special inspector computingdevice, which is typically one of the following:

-   -   Small touch-screen hand-held computers    -   Tablet computers    -   Personal Desk Assistants (PDA's)    -   Blackberry-, IPhone- and Treo-style PDA mobile phones    -   Windows-based handheld computing devices    -   “Ruggedized” handheld devices    -   Desktop computer

The special inspection application is limited to the capabilities thatallow it to perform field Inspections 41. For this purpose, thefunctionality is the same as the field inspector application 10 b. Thiswill be further discussed herein in greater detail.

The special plan review application 12 a is identical in function to theplan review application 12 a. This will be further discussed herein ingreater detail.

FIG. 2 is a flow diagram view of the design professional application 12and how he/she uses the COMPATH™ system in projects. An explanation ofthe design professional application 12 resides in this figure.

FIG. 3 is a flow diagram view of the contractor application 15 and howhe/she uses the COMPATH™ system in projects. An explanation of thecontractor application 15 resides in this figure.

FIG. 4 is a flow diagram view of field inspector application 10 b andhow he/she uses an inspector's hand-held computing device 18 a withloaded COMPATH™ system prior to Inspections 41 to organize his day andcommunicate with project stakeholders. An explanation of the fieldinspector application 10 b resides in this figure.

FIG. 5 is a computer screen shot view of the building designer utility50. It is an inspection layout planner for individual building designs,and includes a utility that develops the building plan schematics 59 foreach floor 310 a in the design. It also lets the designer establishinspection locations limited to the viewable area to verify inspectionrequirements that pertain to those locations. It shows permit IDinformation 52, so the user knows which project is loaded. Thedrag-and-drop building format FIG. 53 can be pulled down into the floorplan locator 56 in the configuration of the building design. The floorlevel 55 can be adjusted with the pull-down field. Inspection locations,where the inspector stands to observe building elements within his viewfor the purpose of determining building code 77 conformance, are laidout with the automatic inspection location designator 57. When the firstinspection location is determined, a double-click on the initiallocation populates, in sequence, the rest of the suggested locations.This comprises the automatic inspection location designator 57. Thedesigner can drag any of the location numbers 165 a to any point of thedrawing with the inspection location editor 58. Back and continuebuttons 177 at the bottom of the screen allow access to the previousscreen or to continue on to the next step in defining all inspectionlocations and building floor 310 a plan configurations in the floor planlocator 56.

FIG. 6 is a computer screen shot view of a design requirement filter 60.This filter selects requirements and regulations that pertain to aparticular design and eliminates those that do not apply. The newconstruction or remodel selection button 61 allows the user to selectonly those requirements that apply to new construction or a remodelingproject. Once the selection has been made, each of the subsequent fieldscan be invoked to target the actual requirements that will pertain tothe project. Occupancies defined by the regulations being enforced 62are broad categories of buildings that pertain to their functions andrisk factors. Examples of different occupancies would be hazardous,assembly and residential. A second level of filtering involves aspecific Use defined by the regulations being enforced 63 that fallwithin these occupancies. Examples would be single-family dwellings,restaurants in the chemical plant. Further filters would includebuilding type defined by the regulations being enforced 64. This simplyrefers to varying combinations of building materials. The remainingfilters represent examples of other collective system selections thateliminate regulations not pertinent to the project 65. Many othercollective system selections that eliminate regulations not pertinent tothe project 65 would be used where, as a general rule, they can beincluded to eliminate requirements that are not pertinent to the projectdesign.

FIG. 7 is a computer screen shot view of the design professionalchecklist editor 70. This utility acts as a final screening editor wherethe designer can add or subtract requirements that either apply or notto individual projects. This represents the output of the designrequirement filter 60 and gives the designer the ability to locaterequirements where systems reside. In the case of our example,mechanical systems 72 represent a category of requirements that includesa heat pump 73, and a gas forced-air furnace 78. In this case, ourexample building has a gas forced-air furnace 78 and does not have aheat pump 73. The delete/add buttons 75 are used to reflect theseselections in the design. Note that heat pump 73, when not selected, isgrayed out. This is an extraneous requirement that is not needed. Thisremains in the list so that the plan review checklist will reflect thismodification. The gas forced-air furnace 78, on the other hand, has beenselected and is not grayed out. Note that a location of the requirement76 button has appeared once the requirement is selected. It is incumbenton the designer to locate the system, in this case, a gas forced-airfurnace 78, in the correct location for inspection. The location of therequirement 76 buttons can be toggled with the red arrows to select theproper location. In addition to the gas forced air furnace listing,associated requirements 79 that pertain to the efficiencies of thatsystem are listed as a subset. In some cases, the designer may wish toprovide comments to the plan reviewer, that are directly associated withindividual requirements 107. In that case, the note button 74 would bedepressed, allowing a note to be added, that will be transmitted to theplan review application 12 a. In this example, other minimized systems71 a are included, including a lighting system and a building envelopesystem. In both cases, they can both be expanded by clicking on the “+”sign 72 a in the box or by clicking it again to make the “−” sign 71 toexpand to expose the underlying requirements. The building code 77button, when depressed, shows the underlying code provision for thatparticular checklist requirement.

FIG. 8 is a computer screen shot view of the plan review checklisteditor 80. This utility allows jurisdiction plan reviewers to add orsubtract specific building regulation requirements that have beensubmitted by the building designer for the building project. Thisrepresents the output of the design requirement filter 60 and designprofessional checklist editor 70, which are used by the designer todevelop checklists for review by the jurisdiction plan reviewer. Thescreen very closely mirrors the design professional checklist editor 70.The example requirements are the same, as they would be in an actualplan review situation. In the case of our example, mechanical systems 72represent a category of requirements that includes a heat pump 73, and agas forced-air furnace 78. In this case, our example building has a gasforced-air furnace 78 and does not have a heat pump 73. The delete/addbuttons 75 are used to reflect these selections in the design. Note thatheat pump 73, when not selected, is grayed out. This is an extraneousrequirement that is not needed. The plan reviewer will verify that theseentries are correct and leave them as is. Note that a location of therequirement 76 button is included free notes that will be returned tothe designer. The plan reviewer will verify the location of the system,in this case, a gas forced-air furnace 78, in the correct location forinspection. Again, the location of the requirement 76 buttons can betoggled with the red arrows to select the proper location. In additionto the gas forced air furnace listing, associated requirements 79 thatpertain to the efficiencies of that system are listed as a subset. Insome cases, the plan reviewer may wish to provide comments to thedesigner that are directly associated with individual requirements 107.In that case, the note button 74 would be depressed, and a note can thenbe added, that will be transmitted to the designer application. As inthe design professional checklist editor 70, other minimized systems 71a are included, including a lighting system and a building envelopesystem. In both cases, they can both be expanded by clicking on the “+”sign 72 a in the box or by clicking it again to make the “−” sign 71appear. The building code 77 button, when depressed, shows theunderlying code provision for that particular checklist requirement.

FIG. 9 is a screen shot view of a handheld filed revisions utility 90,which is used to file, edit and view plan and specification revisions.Revisions are typically submitted after the project is underway. Forthis purpose, the filed revisions utility 90 was developed to allow thesubmitter 96, contractors, and designers, to submit project revisions91. These project revisions 91 must meet specified code requirements 99,as did the original project revisions 91. The file revisions utilityincludes the number of the revision 93, which refers to the number ofspecific changes to a particular requirement and other keyidentification of the permittee and job 94. It also includes the date 95and the subject of revision. Project revisions 91 must be approved bythe building code 77 jurisdiction, and then are redistributed to thecontractor application 15. The subject of the revision 98 details thetechnical change to be used in the project. This becomes a part of thecontractor checklist and field inspector checklist 160. It also caninclude an explanation of the change. Any change in this utility isreflected throughout the system and it is observable by all stakeholdersin this project. The tracking number 92 provides an overall count on therevisions for the project.

FIG. 10 is a screen shot view of a contractor pre-inspection assistant100. This screen provides a checklist that is customized for eachlocation of the inspection 101 in a building and also provides a list ofrequirements that are typical to all areas. All of the requirements in abuilding are collectively reviewed during this process to provide a veryprecise and accountable verification of compliance with all buildingcodes that apply 103. The screen includes permit and job identification102 to always provide a point of reference for the screen. The locationof the inspection 101 or the job address is also included. It specifiesthe building codes that are in play in an inspection. It also specifiesthe floor level 55 where the inspection is being performed in the floorlevel indicator 108. The building schematic 105 has a series ofhyperlinks that can each be invoked by clicking on specific areas ofschematic. Requirements by location 104 are illustrated as a result.Typical requirements 110 are requirements that are typical of all areas,not just a specific location. The detailed check off hyperlink providesaccess to more detailed explanations of each of the requirements bylocation 104 and technical requirements. This provides real-timeeducation about the application and background information for each ofthe requirements, providing a unique context driven educational benefit.After the contractor has verified and checked off all of therequirements by location 104 and typical requirements 110 as being met,the call for framing inspection 112 button becomes illuminated and live.Prior to these verifications, this button is grayed out and cannot beinvoked. This button provides a link to the building department andcommunicates the desire for a re-inspection. Back and continuehyperlinks 111 allow the user to toggle to previous screens, as well asmoving to the next screen in the sequence.

The inspector checklist 160 features the built-in flexibility toaccommodate the specific needs of a local jurisdiction or other overallmandates to tailor protocols and determine which requirements are loadedand managed by the COMPATH™ system. The inspector has no control overthis aspect of the system. The inspector checklist 160 requirements andthose included elsewhere by the COMPATH™ system, and those that areotherwise not included are electronically recorded for auditing purposesby entities having oversight. This feature can only be disengaged ormodified by COMPATH™ system or its agents.

FIG. 11 is a screen shot view of COMPATH™ system main screen 121 of thefield inspector application 10 b. This COMPATH™ system main screen 121allows the user to navigate through key tasks encountered in the courseof performing the duties of a field inspector. These key tasks make theduties of the inspector much more efficient, thereby saving time thatcan be applied to the inspections 41.

The Accept Inspections Today 122 hyperlink is typically switched in the“ON” mode. This means that inspections 41 can be added for the currentday until they fill out all of the available time slots. Once the timeslots for the current day are filled inspection reservations spill intothe following day, or a day and time in the future designated by thecontractor. If the Accept Inspections Today 122 hyperlink is switched“OFF”, no inspections 41 are accepted for the current day, or arechanneled to other designated inspectors. This period of not acceptinginspections 41 will be extended if the inspector has blocked out timeswhen he/she is scheduled to not be working.

The Inspection Planner>Route>Org>Day 123 hyperlink generally allows thejurisdiction inspector to edit or otherwise rearrange inspections 41 ina more optimal route. This can be done on the current or any future dayswhere inspections 41 are reserved. The function of the screen will bediscussed in more detail in FIG. 13.

The Inspections 41 hyperlink invokes the inspections 41 that are laidout for the current day. The functions of this screen will be explainedin FIG. 13.

The Building Permits>Mine>Department 124 hyperlink provides instantaccess to all building permits in the jurisdiction database. This isuseful when an inspector is driving around and sees an unfamiliarbuilding and questions whether or not it has a building permit. Thisutility simply allows a quick search of the system for issued buildingpermits. The “Mine” element of the Building Permits>Mine>Department 124hyperlink only includes permits that the inspector has interacted within some capacity, including those for which he/she has performedinspections 41.

The Inspection Follow-up & Tracking Reports 125 hyperlink provides alist of all inspections 41 that have been performed by the inspectorover a specified period that require follow-up interactions with theproject. The “Tracking” embedded hyperlink in the Inspection Follow-up &Tracking Reports 125 hyperlink flags projects that have problems or thathave been disapproved and have pre-set follow-up dates. The “Reports”embedded hyperlink in the Inspection Follow-up & Tracking Reports 125hyperlink provides strict access to all inspection reports associatedwith building jurisdiction inspections 41.

Business E-mail & Phone Calls 126 hyperlink provides an interface thatincludes a directory of all business associated e-mail addresses andphone numbers. The e-mail client includes letterhead and officialscripting for messages that he combines on keyboard input by theinspectors.

The Inspection Dictaphone>Inspection>Other 127 hyperlink as a generalDictaphone for recording messages on any subject as the inspectorcompletes his daily duties. The “Inspection” embedded hyperlink in theInspection Dictaphone>Inspection>Other 127 hyperlink provides a databaseof all audio files that are associated with jurisdiction inspections 41of the completed by jurisdiction inspectors. The “Other” embeddedhyperlink in the Inspection Dictaphone>Inspection>Other 127 hyperlink isa folder for other audio files relating to important jurisdictionbusiness. The user may define folders in this category.

The Inspection Camera>Inspection>Other 128 hyperlink is a digital camerathat can be used for general purposes. The “Inspection” embeddedhyperlink in the Inspection Camera>Inspection>Other 128 hyperlinkprovides access to a database of pictures associated with jurisdictioninspections 41. The “Other” embedded hyperlink in the InspectionCamera>Inspection>Other 128 hyperlink is a folder for other picturesrelating to important jurisdiction business. The user may define foldersin this category.

The Inspector Default Preferences 129 hyperlink allows the inspector tochange personal settings in the COMPATH™ system to suit his personalwork preferences. Examples include but are not limited to work schedule,alarm settings, building codes under his/her purview, contactinformation, e-mail stationary, some report scripting of contactinformation, and inspection territory boundaries. The Inspector DefaultPreferences 129 does not allow the inspector to edit inspectionrequirements or other critical performance measures for any project ordefined work duties. These types of edits are only allowed by theadministrative authority.

The Building Codes, Ordinances & Policies 120 a hyperlink providesaccess to all building codes, jurisdiction ordinances, policies, andinterpretations that the inspector needs to carry out his or her duties.Ordinances and policies are inserted within the code to embellish thecode or requirement that it may modify.

The Other Publications and Checklists 121 a hyperlink provides buildingjurisdiction publications and also a reference library of documents thatcan help the inspector perform his or her duties. Checklists can beaccessed for a given building project and can be e-mailed in paper orelectronic form to the contractor, if for some reason he or she needscopies.

The Department Bulletins 122 a, hyperlink is just a means of circulatingimportant bulletins and policies to jurisdiction employees. A windowinforms the inspector when new additions have been made.

FIG. 12 is a screen shot view of the main navigation S9reen thatprovides system navigation 130 for the COMPATH™ system. This is the mainscreen in an alternate series of interface screens, FIGS. 13, 14, and 15that can be selected by the user. Sub-screens referenced by each radiobutton underlay and are the same for both alternative interface mainscreens. A point of reference 131 field provides the user with areminder of where a selection has been made that reflects the currentscreen view. This screen provides t led category selectors 132 orhyperlink buttons that provide access to and invoke sub-screens withinformation and system functions under the selected categories. Thisscreen is designed to accommodate and maximize the ability of users tocomfortably use finger, other manual or voice manipulation for makingselections. Conventional screen hyperlinks in handheld computers withsmall screens do not adequately accommodate the imprecision of fingerselection because of the small size of the hyperlinks that must beexpanded prior to effective use. System navigation 130 does not requirethis step because system activators are pre-sized to better approach therange of finger sizes through the required motions to invoke actionsfrom the system.

The hyperlink buttons are depressed by the finger or voice command andthe finger is slid onto a drop-down screen that includes sub-screenselections. The user must maintain finger pressure 130 a during thisphase. As the finger moves over the choices or command is activated, itmakes the selections illuminate with a different color, indicating anactive selection that can be made by lifting the finger or otheractivation device or other command activation. When the an hyperlinkbutton is activated on the main activation screen and after thepull-down screen 134 appears the color of the remaining buttons isdimmed or another means is activated to show the de-emphasis of theremaining hyperlink buttons. The activated hyperlink button then becomesmore prominent by virtue of color change or other means to signal thatit is an active hyperlink button to the user. Lift finger activation 132a of the selection occurs when the finger is lifted. The titles withinthe hyperlink buttons are meant only as examples and are not limited tothose shown.

FIG. 13 is another screen shot view of the main navigation screen (FIG.12) for the COMPATH™ system, showing a pull-down, finger activatedselection field for phone contact options. The finger activators 133 orhyperlinks are activated by finger pressure, a stylus pen, voiceactivation or other means. As finger pressure, a stylus pen, voiceactivation or other means is applied, a pull-down screen 134 appearswhere selections can be made. The scroller 135 allows the scrolleroptions 136 to scroll up and down to the extent of the options that areincluded.

As the finger pressure, a stylus pen, voice activation or other means,is applied, the emphasized selections 137 are visually changed inappearance by illumination or other means. In this case, the text coloris changed. At the same time, the other deemphasized selections 138become deemphasized and this is depicted by a reduction in color orother means to indicate to the user that they are deemphasizedselections 138 that are not selected. These selections may also be madeusing voice activation or other means.

Once pressure is applied or the button is otherwise actuated, emphasizedselections 137 are indicated by greater illumination or other means.This selection may also be made using voice activation or other means ofselection. At the same time, as the stylus or finger is slid over andthrough the scroller options 136 where those selections where pressureis not applied become deemphasized and are depicted by a change in coloror other means to indicate that they are deemphasized selections 138

FIG. 14 is a screen shot view of the main navigation screen for theCOMPATH™ system, showing a pull-down, finger activated selection fieldor pull-down screen 134 for phone contact options. This particularselection is an example of how the physical process activates selectionsand in this case will list all recent incoming and outgoing calls on thesystem. At this point, the user makes a finger slide selection 139 bydecreasing finger or stylus pressure, or selection through other means,which invokes this selection.

FIG. 15 is a screen shot view of the main navigation screen for theCOMPATH™ system, showing a pull-down, finger activated selection fieldfor phone contact options. Finger slide selection 139 can be made forany listed item on the pull-down menu by maintaining pressure until thedesired selection is highlighted. The color change indicates activation.

FIG. 16 is a screen shot view of a handheld computing system inspectionroute organizer and inspection screen. The Schedule Inspections 41screen is primarily used by inspectors to organize and navigate toscheduled inspections 158. The inspection date 151 field can be used toselect the date 95 of inspections 41. The default date 95 is always thecurrent date 95, unless an alternative date 95 is selected by theinspector. The inspection time window 152 is used by the inspector todefine the hours of inspection time in the field. If for whateverreason, these inspections 41 are cut short due to changes in theinspection time window 152, inspections 41 are queried out to otherinspectors, who might be able to accommodate the added workload. If theydecline, automatic e-mails go out to contractors and designers to informthem that the inspections 41 will need to be rescheduled for thefollowing day. All the inspection requests are subject topre-qualification, which involves the contractor's verification usinghis or her own inspection specific checklist to pre-verify that keyelements of the design are in place and that the building elements inplace comply. All of the inspections 41 are automatically arranged bythe COMPATH™ system to optimize the travel route to minimize driving andtimes between inspections 41. This occurs through a mash-up with GPS 150a edit utility 152 a with inputs of site addresses, maps, and roadroutes. An edit utility 152 a allows the inspector to manually rearrangethe inspections 41 should that become more practical based on his or herjudgment.

As the inspector completes inspections 41, for each site stop, he or shecan observe color-coded result progress 154. This visually reminds himor her, which inspections 41 have passed or failed, by virtue of thedifferent colors, and the progress that is being made with the day'sinspections 41. Examples of colors that may be used but may vary for thesame effect are green for completed inspections 41 that pass all of thelisted or other non-specified requirements and red for inspections 41that did not conform to inspection requirements. Real-time recordupdates 159 are uploaded to the building department server 10, and areaccessible to the building official and counter staff. This givesinstantaneous results that are also sent via e-mail, immediatelyfollowing inspections 41, once an inspection report is completed. Onceinvoked, the hyperlinks for inspection and permit information 157 foreach of the listed inspections 41 reveal all of the permit information153 and inspection records. The inspection priority 155 for eachinspection is automatically set but the inspector has the capability todo manual arranging based on needs. Approximate inspection times 151 aare listed and if changes occur throughout the day, automatic rerouting,& scheduling 153 a adjusts the remaining times and transmits the changesback to the network where counter staff and contractors can be instantlyupdated. The inspector always has the option to add to or update permitinformation 153. Inspection type and information 156 allows theinspector to consider the priorities that some inspections 41 have suchas concrete footing inspections 41 where concrete pours are typicallymore time-critical than framing inspections 41, as an example.

FIG. 17 is a screen shot view of an inspector checklist 160 orinspection verifier. Inspection type and information 156 is included toidentify the project and inspection being performed. This inspectorchecklist 160 is customized for each inspection location, a number ofwhich are located throughout the structure and which combine to comprisea complete inspection. Much of the power of this system resides in thisscreen and the inspector checklist 160. The inspector checklist 160system requires the inspector to respond to each requirementindividually, thereby making him or her responsible and accountable foreach active response. The “Note” button on the OK, NOK and Note buttons163 is automatically invoked when the inspector clicks on NOK 220 c.This forces him or her to make a response to note why NOK 220 c or thedisapproval was activated and more importantly, to detail thedisapproval, which will be included in the inspection report associatedwith the current inspection.

It is very important to provide inspection identification 161, such thatthe inspector can readily see which project an inspection he or she isworking on. It includes the floor being inspected 167 a, the inspectionselection 165, and locations. The building plan schematic is a keyelement in activating and toggling back and forth between locationswithin the building. This allows the inspector to quickly access andcompare requirements in different parts of the building as needed. Thecolor-coding 166 of the completed and uncompleted locations gives theinspector an instant assessment of the overall completion level of theinspection. Within the building plan schematics 59, it is sometimesimportant to have individual wall schematics 211, especially when thereis glazing or many more details than can be included effectively in onepage of the inspector checklist 160. The individual wall schematics 211have letter designations and in addition to color coding 166 includenotations, noted as “OK” within the schematic 167 designating approvalor “NOK” within the schematic 166 a, indicating that the location hassome items on the inspector checklist 160 that have been disapproved. Inlocation 3, the “F” 160 a and “A” 163 a hyperlinks provide access tofloor 310 a and attic requirements that adjoin the associated location.The cardinal direction 169 figure orients the inspector in the building,which may be important for navigation, in some cases. The schematic alsoincludes exterior 161 a and under floor 310 a hyperlinks that can beactivated when the inspector is in a favorable location to view andinspect these areas. Location numbers 165 a are provided in theschematic for every point where requirements can be readily viewed bythe inspector. These requirements are reflected in the inspectionchecklist, corresponding to the location numbers 165 a.

The checklist requirements provide a list of those requirements that aretypical to all areas. The building inspector must confirm that allrequirements are met on this collective checklist prior to issuingapprovals 97 for Inspections 41. The inspection selection 165 allows theinspector to choose the code and type of inspection to be performed. Thelocations are actually indexed redundantly in three places in thepull-down field: the building plan schematic, the location, and theheading to the inspector checklist 160 requirements. The floor level 55is also indicated as an index of where the inspection is performed.Combining inspection checklist 162 items for multiple codes may beselected or be performed independently of one another. Most inspectorswill choose to mingle them together. Detailed requirements 164 representthe individual requirements 107 under the general system or topic ofinspection. The detail check off hyperlinks 316 a allow the inspector tofurther drill-down on more information about a particular checklistitem, which will be explained in greater detail in FIG. 18. Specificinspector checklist 160 items for individual locations within theproject 169 a are listed in a separate area from typical checklistrequirements that apply to all locations. OK, NOK and Note buttons 163provide an opportunity for the inspector to either approve or disapproveeach requirement, while also allowing notes to be included in theinspection report. The backup or continue hyperlinks 162 b allow theinspector to look at the previous screen or continue on to the nextscreen in the inspection process. A scrolling a requirements hyperlinkis used to scroll through requirements as needed to complete inspections41 within the category.

FIG. 18 is a screen shot view of Detailed Check-off screen 170 or theinspection drill-down verifier. This is an example of a screen that isactivated when the detail check off hyperlinks 316 a for a requirementsare employed in the inspector inspection verifier screen from FIG. 17.This screen shows a subset of each general requirement 176 or a moredetailed description and approval format for inspectors that need moredirection and detailed instructions. It also provides him or her withapproval, disapproval, and note buttons 174 for each of thesesub-requirements. For those that need an even more detailed explanationof inspection requirements, the details hyperlink 175 can be invoked foran even more detailed illustration of the inspector checklist 160requirements being inspected. The identification information 171 on thescreen and the schematic protocol is the same as FIG. 17. Thisinspection detail example 173 is meant to be representative of manysimilar code requirement checklist items that need further elaboration.As such, it illustrates the protocol, and is not limited to a specificand narrowly defined solution to air sealing details. The detailshyperlink 175 represents a further explanation of drill-down detail onone requirement depicted in FIG. 18. FIG. 19 describes how one of thesechecklist items can be even further illuminated. Each of these checklistrequirements is a subset of a general requirement checklist item listedin FIG. 17. For the purpose of illustrating the details hyperlink 175, aduct is illuminated in FIG. 19 by invoking the details hyperlink 175under ductwork joints and seals 178.

FIG. 19 is a screen shot view drill-down duct detail on one requirementdepicted in FIG. 18. The identification information 171 on the screenand the schematic protocol is the same as FIGS. 17 and 18. This screenwill is an example of an even more detailed treatment of building systemdetails, the requirements and the approval, disapproval and notationradio buttons. It provides links to approved materials for compliance;the importance of the measures; critical areas of attention;commentaries that provide background information and technicaldocumentation; code references to the requirements and a feedbackmechanism for the software developers.

This screen has been invoked as a result of activating the detailshyperlink 175 for ductwork joints and seals 178 in FIG. 18. Duct sealingrequires detailed attention, and the proper way of completing this taskin its verification can be somewhat complex. This duct-sealing example182 shows how this protocol can illustrate, train, and render simplerthe process of ensuring compliance. As the user becomes more familiarwith applying details, he or she may not need to invoke this screen andmay instead shortcut to the more general checklist requirement in FIG.18. The additional graphics and details 187 illustrate the visualapproach to compliance. Quality control details 183 explain in atraining manual format how the sealing process is carried out andapproved products that can be used in the process. Commentary andmanuals 180 a include information about the referenced detail underconsideration and includes a direct bibliography of information thatleads the inspector to further edification on the issue. Quality controlfeedback 181 a is a mechanism by which inspectors can provide feedbackabout the system to COMPATH™ system developers. E-mail context-drivenforms to contractor 186 are an instantaneous means of supplyingcertification forms or other relevant form documents to a pre-configurede-mail address associated with the contractor or other responsibleparties. Identification, schematic locator, and other referencinginformation 181 are consistent with FIGS. 17 and 18.

FIG. 20 is a screen shot view of an inspector's handheld computingsystem showing the inspection note generator 192. The inspection notegenerator 192 has a series of pre-written inspection note clauses ofcommon deficiencies and often-used inspection comments. These clausessave much time in the notation process, when they can simply be insertedand thereby avoid excessive keyboard work by the inspector. This istime-consuming and is intended to abbreviate explanations of problems,thereby decreasing additional questions and communication burdens on theinspector. The inspection note generator 192 automatically inserts thereferenced building code 190, code section 191, and code topic 194. Atype-in editor 196 is provided to the user to edit comments and addadditional text. A locator reference 193 reminds the inspector thelocation that pertains to the note.

FIG. 21 is a screen shot view of a handheld computing system model codesscreen 200. This model codes screen 200 provides quick and easy accessto the adopted Model Codes and adopted ordinances is an essential key toinforming all the stakeholders about the requirements that affect theirjobs. This protocol provides readily accessible access to all of theadopted code requirements 99 in a jurisdiction as well as context codesection 191 references for each inspection item. The program also citescode sections for any noted deficiency. The timeworn request bycontractors to inspectors “Show me where it says that in the code” iseasily resolved with this system. Deficiency reports automatically citethe code section 191 to the contractor—which basically eliminates thistime consuming task for the inspector and plan reviewer.

There are several noteworthy sections of this screen. In the upper area,the code, edition, section, ordinances, and interpretations 201 fieldscan be completed by the inspector and essentially drive the informationthat is provided. The resulting text correlates to the code, edition,section, ordinances, and interpretations 201 fields.

FIG. 22 is a screen shot view of the jurisdiction inspectors glazinginspection screen. The screen has a consistent interface and includeskey identifying information 210 as explained previously in FIGS. 17 and18, and is evident in other screens in the COMPATH™ system. The familiarlocator within a building is included in the screen. The schematiclocator 213 is a very important element when doing glazing inspections41, because they are typically done wall by wall. Wall hyperlinks may beclicked separately within the each inspection location, making theglazing for each wall appear with the required glazing. With thisprocess, the inspector has the ability to approve all or individualglazing units 217. Color-coding of different glazing assemblies 212 isalso a feature that makes those assemblies that have differentspecifications stand out from those that are consistent. The differencesrelate to glazing specifications, particularly glazing area 214 andefficiencies. The system has an ability to approve all or individualglazing units 217 depending on whether it can be determined that allglazing units within a location readily apply with the requirements.When one glazing unit does not apply, the remaining glazing units aretypically inspected and approved on an individual basis area. Thereference point in the schematic always provides the inspector a generalpoint of reference 131 in the inspection process.

FIG. 23 is another screen shot view of the jurisdiction inspectorsglazing inspection screen from FIG. 22. This screen is repeated to showadditional details and features of FIG. 22. Solar heat gain coefficientsand U-value glazing efficiencies 220 are critical features indetermining glazing and associated code compliance. To comply, theglazing assemblies must mirror those listed in the jurisdiction-approvedplans and specifications. Prior to the COMPATH™ system, this metric hasbeen very difficult and time-consuming to verify. Consequently,enforcement of glazing requirements has been very poor. Solar heat gaincoefficients and U-value glazing efficiencies 220 are extremelyimportant to the overall efficiency of buildings, as is the totalglazing area 214 throughout the building. The glazing area 214 total isthe sum of the individual glazing areas of each glazing assembly. In thecase of our listed glazing assembly example, 4′×5′=20 square feet.Glazing area 214 is critical because it has the highest rate of heattransfer of the building envelope assemblies or external barrier againstthe outside environment.

The inspector normally checks off each glazing assembly that ispresented. If the glazing assembly does not comply, he or she clicks onthe NOK 220 c button and the glazing detail pull-down menus 221 appear.These menus allow for the input of details about alternative glazingthat has been installed without building jurisdiction approval. Fromthis information, a determination can be made as to whether overallglazing compliance requirements can be met. When different efficiencyvalues are entered than were specified for the approved glazingassembly, the field calculator for non-complying glazing provides anassessment, using accepted engineering algorithms to compare against thebaseline glazing requirements and determines whether overall compliancecan still be met. This is reflected in a pass or no pass at the bottomof the glazing detail pull-down menu. This indicates approval ordisapproval of the glazing requirements, which in turn indicates anapproval or disapproval of the inspection being performed.

FIG. 24 is another screen shot view of the jurisdiction inspectorsglazing inspection screen from FIG. 22. This screen is repeated to showadditional details and features of FIG. 22. Individual wall schematics211 maintain a point of reference 131, where the glazing under reviewresides. A pull-down field of database of glazing products 231 isincluded in the glazing detail pull-down window. This database includesa product catalog of all known glazing products and theirspecifications. Selecting glazing characteristics 230 can be carried oututilizing the pull-down fields in the glazing detail pull-down menu. Insome cases, the glazing assembly will not be identifiable, but theconstruction features and materials will be observable. In this case,depending on the building code 77 in force, default efficiency valuesmay be included that reflect those listed in the adopted building code77 or standard. Glazing that does not comply, can be evaluated usingglazing filters 232 in the glazing pull-down menu.

FIG. 25 is another screen shot view of the jurisdiction inspectorsglazing inspection screen from FIG. 22. This screen is repeated to showadditional details and features of FIG. 22. This screen illustrates theunlisted glazing protocol 240. FIG. 26 shows additional details. Ifglazing is not identifiable, has no labels, or is site built, theassembly details and materials may then form the basis for assigningcode defined default efficiency values 250 that are listed in thereference code, local ordinance or by jurisdiction policy. These valuesare embedded in the COMPATH™ program by the system administrators. Thisfeature is very valuable in the field, because it can turn a cumbersomedisapproval and re-inspection processes into an instantaneous approvalif other components are able to compensate to meet the overall energyefficiency requirements. The pass or no pass calculator 251 performsthis operation in the background and manifests its results with a PASSor NO PASS in the lower portion of the glazing detail pull-down menu.This is an example of a COMPATH™ system calculation process that will bevery attractive to contractors and building inspectors saving aconsiderable amount of time and resources.

FIG. 27 is a screen shot view of a handheld computing system approvalrecords screen. This is a simple screen that provides a list ofinspection results for all inspections 41 under a particular buildingpermit or permits. Refer to the screen for the organization and textthat can be observed for a typical permitted building constructionproject. A list of inspection results for a particular building permit260 is illustrated for a typical building project.

FIG. 28 is a typical COMPATH™ system inspection report that is used bythe contractor to resolve violations in preparation for requestingre-inspection. This contractor's pre-framing checklist example 353 a hassample information that will vary with virtually every inspection andinspection report. This report has the jurisdiction header, whichidentifies the jurisdiction having authority over this particularproject. It also has identifying information that identifies the permitholder, contact information, permit number, site address, andconstruction company. The contractor's instructions describe the way inwhich the pre-framing checklist should be used to reach compliance andinitiate a re-inspection of the listed checklist items. Building code 77identification is listed for each category of checklist requirements.With each checklist requirement, key hyperlinked information isincluded. The “?” hyperlinks that explain each checklist deficiencyelaborate in greater detail the deficiencies and how they can bemitigated. A code reference is also associated with each checklist itemproviding the underlying code section 191 number and text. In somecases, the checklist item will have an associated product listing thatprovides a set of instructions for specific products. In some cases,this is an essential part of the fulfillment of the requirement.

This hyperlinked information provides a great deal of clarification forthe contractor about the listed deficiencies. With this addedcommentary, contractors have a reduced need to occupy jurisdictionbuilding inspector's time and by asking questions and seekingclarifications about issues that they do not understand. This frees upmore time for the inspector to provide primary attention to performinginspections 41 in a more efficient manner. As the contractor progressesdown the checklist item list, he or she will place checks in thecheckboxes. All of these boxes must be checked, which indicates that theitems have been corrected.

Typically, the inspector will need a means to communicate specialcomments or requirements to the contractor and this will be recorded inthe inspector's notes. An explanation of our report processing isincluded to explain how, in this case, the contractors pre-framingchecklist example is processed and included with the overall inspectionrecords. An inspection request radio button that can only be invokedwhen all items are approved is normally grayed out and not usable untilall the checkboxes are checked, indicating compliance. This processensures that the contractor has systematically verified that all of thedeficiencies have been corrected prior to re-inspection by checking thecheckboxes. This makes the re-inspection by the jurisdiction inspector,much more efficient and more likely to result in a re-inspectionapproval. This saves considerable time on the part of the contractor andthe jurisdiction. This conserved time can then be dedicated to moreeffective, building inspections 41.

FIG. 29 is a typical COMPATH™ system pre-inspection inspection reportthat is used by the sub-contractor to resolve violations that he or shewas responsible by virtue of his or her work on the project. Asubcontractor version for pre-framing inspection is completed for thecontractor in preparation to qualify for re-inspection. The contractoris responsible for verifying the corrections of the subcontractor andcalling for re-inspection. The format of the subcontractorpre-inspection checklist is basically identical to the FIG. 28 versionfor contractors. The only exception is the OK for contractor radiobutton at the lower portion of the form.

This sub-contractor's pre-framing checklist example 353 a has sampleinformation that will vary with virtually every inspection andinspection report. This report has the jurisdiction header, whichidentifies the jurisdiction having authority over a particular project.It also has identifying information that identifies the permit holder,contact information, permit number, site address, and constructioncompany. The sub-contractor's instructions describe the way in which thepre-framing checklist should be used to reach compliance and initiate are-inspection of the listed checklist items. Building codeidentification is listed for each category of checklist requirements.With each checklist requirement, key hyperlinked information isincluded. The “?” hyperlinks explain each checklist deficiency byelaborating, in greater detail, the deficiencies and how they can bemitigated. A code reference is also associated with each checklist item,providing the underlying code section 191 number and text. In somecases, the checklist item will have an associated product listing thatprovides a set of instructions for specific products. In some cases,this is an essential part of the fulfillment of the requirement.

This hyperlinked information provides a great deal of clarification forthe sub-contractor about the listed deficiencies. With this addedcommentary, sub-contractors have a reduced need to occupy thejurisdiction building inspector's time through asking questions andseeking clarifications about issues that they do not understand. Thisfrees up more time for the inspectors to provide their primary attentionto performing inspections 41 in a more efficient manner. As thesub-contractor progresses down the checklist item list, he or she willplace checks in the checkboxes. All of these boxes must be checked,which indicates that the items have been corrected. The sub-contractorreport exclusively benefits the contractor with his or her results anddoes not interact or request inspections 41 from the jurisdiction. Onlythe contractor can make the re-inspection request.

Typically, the inspector will need a means to communicate specialcomments or requirements to the contractor and, indirectly to thesubcontractor, and this will be recorded in the inspector's notes. Anexplanation of report processing is included to explain how, in thiscase, the sub-contractors pre-framing checklist example is processed andis included with the overall inspection records. An OK for thecontractor request radio button can only be invoked when all checklistitems are approved. It is normally grayed out and not usable until allthe checkboxes are checked, indicating compliance. This process ensuresthat the sub-contractor has systematically verified to the contractorthat all of the deficiencies have been corrected prior to there-inspection. This makes the re-inspection by the jurisdictioninspector, much more efficient and more likely to result in are-inspection approval. This saves considerable time on the part of thecontractor, subcontractor, and the jurisdiction. This conserved time canthen be dedicated to more effective, building inspections 41.

FIG. 30 is an example of an other-than-English language subcontractorpre-inspection checklist. The only difference between FIG. 30 and FIG.29 is the translation of this particular example into another-than-English version. All the descriptions included under FIG. 28apply to FIG. 30. The purpose for translating the subcontractor'spre-inspection checklist example into other languages is that manysub-contracting crews do not speak English. This creates a major problemin providing instructions that vary from project to project. Often timesthe language barrier results in poor regulation compliance. The resultis a major problem with failed inspections 41, adversely affecting thetime and resources required to perform re-inspections. These checklistsprovide very specific, customized checklist requirements that arereadily understandable by other than English-speaking subcontractingcrews. This makes contractors, much more efficient with these workers ingaining desired results and, in turn, creating more efficiency betweenthe contractor and jurisdiction inspector.

Since other modifications and changes varied to fit particular operatingrequirements and environments will be apparent to those skilled in theart, the invention is not considered limited to the example chosen forpurposes of disclosure, and covers all changes and modifications whichdo not constitute departures from the true spirit and scope of thisinvention.

Having thus described the invention, what is desired to be protected byLetters Patent is presented in the subsequently appended claims.

I claim:
 1. A computer-implemented method to provide efficiency andaccountability during an inspector visit of a construction project byproviding an audit mechanism to check inspector and constructionrepresentative performance, the method comprising: receiving at ajurisdiction server from a designer computing device plans and/orspecifications for a structure to be built at the construction project,wherein the plans and/or specifications include one or more buildingcomponents inspected upon construction by the jurisdiction based on thejurisdiction's regulations governing construction details and/orpractices; matching at the jurisdiction server the jurisdiction'sregulations to building components within the plans and/orspecifications to determine targets for inspection by the jurisdictionto verify compliance with the jurisdiction's regulations, whereinmatching comprises: presenting an interface with a list of buildingcomponents available for inspection identified from the received plansand/or specifications; receiving from a representative of thejurisdiction a subset of the building components available forinspection that are relevant to the jurisdiction for verification via aninspection; and adding the subset of building components to the targetsfor inspection to be inspected by the inspector, wherein determiningtargets for inspection according to the preceding steps causes a levelof plan review detail to be adjustable to reflect policy of thejurisdiction and accommodates political and program mandates that varyby jurisdiction; selecting building components of the structure from thedetermined targets for inspection during an inspection visit by aninspector working on behalf of the jurisdiction; before an inspectionrequest is submitted and before detecting that the inspector arrives toinspect the selected building components of the structure, presenting toa contractor, subcontractor, or design professional, referred to here asa construction representative, who is working on the constructionproject, using a construction representative computing device thataccesses the jurisdiction server, an interface that presents informationdescribing the selected building components so that the constructionrepresentative can perform a pre-inspection quality control check;receiving from the construction representative on the constructionrepresentative computing device input indicating compliance ornon-compliance of each of the selected building components; response toan indication that the construction representative has fixed anynon-compliant building components indicated by the pre-inspectionquality control check, communicating compliance of the selected buildingcomponents to the jurisdiction server, and presenting at theconstruction representative computing device an inspection requestinterface that could not be accessed prior to finishing thepre-inspection quality control check to request a visit to theconstruction project from the inspector; displaying on an inspectorcomputing device that accesses the jurisdiction server, a user interfacethat shows a list of inspection requests assigned by the jurisdictionserver to the inspector; after determining based on the inspector'sinput that the inspector is conducting a visit to the constructionproject following the construction representative's pre-inspectionquality control check, presenting to the inspector on the inspectorcomputing device an interface that presents information describing theselected building components; receiving from the inspector on theinspector computing device during the visit input indicating complianceor non-compliance of each of the selected building components,submitting from the inspector computing device to the jurisdictionserver the received input from the inspector; and generating on thejurisdiction server or inspector computing device a detailed inspectionreport for the construction representative that indicates non-compliantbuilding components determined by the inspector and the applicableregulation violated by each non-compliant building component, whereinthe jurisdiction server will not permit the construction representativeto access the inspection request interface again until the constructionrepresentative completes a new pre-inspection quality control check ofthe non-compliant building components.
 2. The method of claim 1 whereineach regulation includes a hyperlink to a descriptive section and stockexplanation of one or more conditions for compliance with theregulation, and wherein regulations may include at least one of localordinances, model building codes, model building standards, statutes,state codes, federal agency regulations, state agency regulations,federal building codes, policies, and other types of specifications. 3.The method of claim 1 wherein selecting building components forinspection comprises providing a graphical interface that includes eachinspection location, in which each location further includes bothrequirements applicable to all areas of the building, and requirementsthat are system selected to apply only at the specific location wherethe inspector currently is located to provide a visual roadmap of theinspector's location in the building and how he proceeds through eachbuilding location to complete the inspection.
 4. The method of claim 1further comprising storing an inspector profile that includes one ormore areas of expertise of the inspector, and assigning an inspector toinspect the building components based on comparing the stored areas ofexpertise and the plans and/or specifications for the buildingcomponents.
 5. The method of claim 1 further comprising generating areport upon completion of inspection for delivery to one or moreconstruction representatives.
 6. The method of claim 1 furthercomprising providing a user interface to one or more constructionrepresentatives that allows viewing areas inspected by the inspector andspecific reasons for compliance or noncompliance of the buildingcomponents inspected.
 7. The method of claim 1 wherein selectingbuilding components for inspection comprises examining a history ofitems failing inspection for past projects and prioritizing thosebuilding components most likely to be noncompliant.
 8. The method ofclaim 1 wherein selecting building components for inspection comprisesaccessing a stored indication of areas of expertise of each inspectorand prioritizing those building components of the construction projectthat most closely match each inspector's areas of expertise.
 9. Acomputer system for facilitating building inspections and providingprioritization and accountability to the inspection process, the systemcomprising: a jurisdiction server configured to manage constructionprojects performed in a jurisdiction and to communicate with computingdevices used by construction representatives, inspectors, and designersassociated with construction projects performed in the jurisdiction; adesigner computing device that communicates with a plan and/orspecification input component of the jurisdiction server to receiveplans and/or specifications from a designer associated with aconstruction project, wherein the plans and/or specifications includeone or more building components inspected upon construction by thejurisdiction to verify compliance with the jurisdiction's regulationsgoverning construction details and/or practices, wherein the plan and/orspecification input component: 1) matches the jurisdiction's regulationsto building components within the plans and/or specification todetermine targets for inspection by the jurisdiction to verifycompliance with the jurisdiction's regulations and 2) selects buildingcomponents of the structure from determined targets for inspectionduring an inspection visit by an inspector working on behalf of thejurisdiction, wherein matching comprises: presenting an interface with alist of building components available for inspection identified from thereceived plans and/or specifications; receiving from a representative ofthe jurisdiction a subset of the building components available forinspection that are relevant to the jurisdiction for verification via aninspection; and adding the subset of building components to the targetsfor inspection to be inspected by the inspector, wherein determiningtargets for inspection according to the preceding steps causes a levelof plan review detail to be adjustable to reflect policy of thejurisdiction and accommodates political and program mandates that varyby jurisdiction; a construction representative computing device thatincludes a construction representative interface for displayinginspection information from the jurisdiction server to one or morecontractors, subcontractors, or design professionals, referred to hereas construction representatives, associated with the constructionproject, wherein the construction representative interface includes: 1)an interface that presents information describing the selected buildingcomponents so that the construction representative can perform apre-inspection quality control check, 2) an interface to receive fromthe construction representative input indicating compliance ornon-compliance of each of the selected building components, 3) aninspection request interface to request a visit to the constructionproject from the inspector, that could not be accessed prior to theconstruction representative finishing the pre-inspection quality controlcheck, and 4) a post-inspection interface that presents specificindications of one or more building components of the constructionproject that were flagged for remediation during a recent inspection; aninspector computing device having an inspector interface for displayingprioritization and scheduling information to an inspector that indicatesa schedule for the inspector to visit multiple inspection job sites forinspection and selected building components of each construction projecton which the inspector is to focus; and an inspection code libraryassociated with the jurisdiction server that contains statutory buildingcode information for the jurisdiction for comparison with building plansand/or specifications and for generating reports indicating noncompliantbuilding components of a construction project; wherein the computersystem acts as an additional party to the interaction between theinspector and construction representative that behaves in a systematic,consistent manner with clearly defined expectations to hold both theinspector and construction representative accountable by providing anaudit mechanism to check inspector and construction representativeperformance.
 10. The system of claim 9 wherein the inspection codelibrary further contains one or more exception policies that indicatemodifications by an authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) to a buildingcode used across multiple jurisdictions.
 11. The system of claim 9wherein the inspector interface is a web-based interface accessible viaa network connection of the portable networked device.
 12. The system ofclaim 9 wherein the plan and/or specification input component receivesinput from the designer to input plans and/or specifications reflectingcode and other regulation compliance related to a particularconstruction project, and wherein the system provides feedback to thedesigner indicating one or more potential problem areas of the plansand/or specification.
 13. The system of claim 9 wherein the portablenetworked device includes one or more devices selected from the groupconsisting of a smartphone, a tablet computer, and a laptop computercarried by the inspector and wherein the portable networked device runsan application that implements the system.
 14. The system of claim 9wherein the construction representative interface component includes areference with each building component flagged for remediation to aspecific building code provision associated with a cause for failure ofthe building component to pass inspection.
 15. The system of claim 9wherein the inspector interface component includes stock text associatedwith each building component and potential code violation from which theinspector can select for inclusion in an inspection report.
 16. Acomputer-readable storage medium comprising instructions for controllinga computer system to schedule inspector schedules in a jurisdiction,wherein the instructions, upon execution, cause a processor to performactions comprising: receiving at a jurisdiction server one or morerequests from one or more construction representative computing devicesto inspect one or more construction projects in a jurisdiction, whereinthe jurisdiction server does not allow a contractor, subcontractor, ordesign professional, referred to here as a construction representative,to request an inspection until the construction representative hasperformed a pre-inspection quality control check; receiving at thejurisdiction server a list of available inspectors employed by thejurisdiction to inspect construction projects for compliance with localbuilding codes; determining at the jurisdiction server an assignment ofconstruction projects to inspectors that matches at least one inspectorto each construction project that has requested an inspection;scheduling at the jurisdiction server each inspector's daily schedule toindicate which of the multiple locations within targeted buildings eachinspector should be present at during a time period and communicatingwith one or more inspector computing devices to inform each inspector ofa suggested schedule determined by the jurisdiction server forfinalization by the inspector; and during a visit to a constructionproject, providing the inspector via one of the one or more inspectorcomputing devices with a prioritized list in a user interface ofbuilding components within the construction project on which theinspector should focus during the visit, wherein the computer systemacts as an additional party to the interaction between the inspector andconstruction representative that behaves in a systematic, consistentmanner with clearly defined expectations to hold both the inspector andconstruction representative accountable by providing an audit mechanismto check inspector and construction representative performance.
 17. Themedium of claim 16 wherein the list of available inspectors includes anindication of one or more areas of expertise of each inspector andwherein determining an assignment matches inspectors to constructionprojects based on the indicated areas of expertise.
 18. The medium ofclaim 16 wherein the list of available inspectors includes an indicationof one or more geographical areas within the jurisdiction to which eachinspector is assigned.